Ireland Considers Purchase of AD Fighters
There is no threat really
Except for the Russians might invade Ireland and use it as a staging post to invade the UK like the Germans planned in the war , which is unlikely
I think most of the Irish are willing to have the UK and France defend them when required.
The exception to most Irish would be the IRA , sorry Sinn fein who hate everything thing British and would welcome everyone including the Mysterons if they thought it would further their cause.
So I just think it's one of the election time things to reassure the locals the government cares.
Except for the Russians might invade Ireland and use it as a staging post to invade the UK like the Germans planned in the war , which is unlikely
I think most of the Irish are willing to have the UK and France defend them when required.
The exception to most Irish would be the IRA , sorry Sinn fein who hate everything thing British and would welcome everyone including the Mysterons if they thought it would further their cause.
So I just think it's one of the election time things to reassure the locals the government cares.
DHC4 to Startledgrapefruit - 'Sinn Fein hate everything British, are you basing that on fact or is this just your own thoughts.'
To put it into perspective...having lived and operated in Northern Ireland for a significant proportion of my life you would probably expect me to instinctively agree with that statement.
However, having been awarded a Masters Degree (MLitt) in Irish Politics, my Professor (and Dir Defence Studies (RAF) who sponsored me) instilled in me the need for objectivity. So I genuinely always try to take the non-partisan view. Which in some circles in NI doesn't necessarily go down well.
Nevertheless I still agree with the statement. Sinn Fein, as a political movement, find anything to do with the British Government, Military and even their fellow citizens who hold a different passport to them, totally anathema.
To put it into perspective...having lived and operated in Northern Ireland for a significant proportion of my life you would probably expect me to instinctively agree with that statement.
However, having been awarded a Masters Degree (MLitt) in Irish Politics, my Professor (and Dir Defence Studies (RAF) who sponsored me) instilled in me the need for objectivity. So I genuinely always try to take the non-partisan view. Which in some circles in NI doesn't necessarily go down well.
Nevertheless I still agree with the statement. Sinn Fein, as a political movement, find anything to do with the British Government, Military and even their fellow citizens who hold a different passport to them, totally anathema.
Last edited by OJ 72; 5th Jul 2020 at 12:03. Reason: Spelling!
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To aid genuine followers of the forum - no such blanket right exists and flight in international airspace is not a random uncontrolled free-for-all. The poster above is a provocateur with no connection to military aviation and as such, he will say things that are not true for his own reasons.
The rules and procedures for international airspace have, unsurprisingly, rules and procedures in order to ensure safety for all users. The repeated concern with Russian activities is that they do not follow the international rules and procedures for the safe transit of international airspace; so triggering a QRA response and even rerouting of civilian traffic.
The Russian activities are designed to be an irritant by deliberately operating in an unsafe manner, against the international treaties that it is a signatory of.
The rules and procedures for international airspace have, unsurprisingly, rules and procedures in order to ensure safety for all users. The repeated concern with Russian activities is that they do not follow the international rules and procedures for the safe transit of international airspace; so triggering a QRA response and even rerouting of civilian traffic.
The Russian activities are designed to be an irritant by deliberately operating in an unsafe manner, against the international treaties that it is a signatory of.
Last edited by She said; 6th Jul 2020 at 05:37.
DHC4 to Startledgrapefruit - 'Sinn Fein hate everything British, are you basing that on fact or is this just your own thoughts.'
To put it into perspective...having lived and operated in Northern Ireland for a significant proportion of my life you would probably expect me to instinctively agree with that statement.
However, having been awarded a Masters Degree (MLitt) in Irish Politics, my Professor (and Dir Defence Studies (RAF) who sponsored me) instilled in me the need for objectivity. So I genuinely always try to take the non-partisan view. Which in some circles in NI doesn't necessarily go down well.
Nevertheless I still agree with the statement. Sinn Fein, as a political movement, find anything to do with the British Government, Military and even their fellow citizens who hold a different passport to them, totally anathema.
To put it into perspective...having lived and operated in Northern Ireland for a significant proportion of my life you would probably expect me to instinctively agree with that statement.
However, having been awarded a Masters Degree (MLitt) in Irish Politics, my Professor (and Dir Defence Studies (RAF) who sponsored me) instilled in me the need for objectivity. So I genuinely always try to take the non-partisan view. Which in some circles in NI doesn't necessarily go down well.
Nevertheless I still agree with the statement. Sinn Fein, as a political movement, find anything to do with the British Government, Military and even their fellow citizens who hold a different passport to them, totally anathema.
Now, WRT the purpose of this thread … just who would benefit from a socialist state on the western edge of Europe?
JAS
I’d recommend Lt Col Dan Harvey (Ret’d) book Soldiering Against Subversion for anyone who thinks that a Sinn Fein government might address any Defence Forces issues. TL/DR - won’t happen.
In the meantime, we have this to worry about. Unfortunately it puts interceptors, new transport aircraft or even the future replacement of the heli fleet under pressure if the attempts to keep people fail.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...fail-1.4296913
In the meantime, we have this to worry about. Unfortunately it puts interceptors, new transport aircraft or even the future replacement of the heli fleet under pressure if the attempts to keep people fail.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...fail-1.4296913
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
No, but it would allow them to drop the current, mainly unadvertised, agreement whereby the RAF has overflight rights and performs the Air Policing role inside Irish airspace.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–NATO_relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland–NATO_relations
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
My own view on the whole argument for an interceptor is that it’s about air policing rather than old school ‘they shall not pass’ stuff. In this example, an Irish jet would replace the RAF one that goes up towards a non squawking, non talking aircraft in Shannon FIR and gives the ‘ aircraft at position xxx, height xxx, heading xxx please say your intentions’ spiel that you occasionally hear on VHF so that everyone else can avoid them.
There’s also the airliner lost comms/ damage assessment type of flight that are rarer. As the service to the state is currently provided by the RAF on a the basis of a bilateral agreement with the UK, de facto, there is a recognised need for it at Govt level. The question is do we want to have sovereign control over it like nearly everyone else.
There’s also the airliner lost comms/ damage assessment type of flight that are rarer. As the service to the state is currently provided by the RAF on a the basis of a bilateral agreement with the UK, de facto, there is a recognised need for it at Govt level. The question is do we want to have sovereign control over it like nearly everyone else.
Our aviation authorities do possess state of the art secondary radar, but this type of system can only track 'compliant' aircraft who leave their transponders switched on. ... In such circumstances, Ireland is one of the only states in the European Union which cannot 'see' into its airspace by way of primary radar.15 Aug 2016
Tom Clonan: Why it's time to have an open and honest debate ...
It’s the big problem with building a capability from scratch. At the very least, you have to shell out for radar, aircraft, hangerage, upgraded weapons storage etc at the same time, or over the same period. If you have an existing system in place, or assets with overlapping capabilities you can avoid much of that, but you would’ve had to start buying modern equipment fifty years ago for that to help now.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Declan, affordability is obviously an issue but a package buy has the attraction that it should all work together as a package. Until you have seen what system integration to legacy systems costs you would forget about gradual acquisition.
Well, I suppose necessity will look after that seeing as it’s a blank page at the moment. It would also depend on any tender being written with that integrated approach in mind, otherwise you just get a selection of cheapest offers in each category.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...rity-pp0rlkk0q
‘Not enough military pilots’ to maintain airborne security
The Department of Defence has been told that the number of pilots available in the Air Corps is below the “critical mass” needed for airborne security, new records show.
Eight Irish pilots are being trained with the US military in Alabama, as the Defence Forces warned that premature retirements from the Air Corps had reached a “critical level”.
A record released under a freedom of information request revealed that a business case prepared for the Department of Defence said the number of pilots available in the Air Corps had fallen below “the critical mass required to sustain the provision of airborne defence and security operations”.
The record — which was released with redactions for security reasons — warns that “immediate remedial action” was required to rebuild available manpower. It said that outsourced training would be crucial “to restore the provision of adequate airborne defence and security services”.
The defence forces and the Department of Defence declined to confirm how much the training was going to cost the taxpayer. However, internal records from the department give an estimate of €650,000 to €850,000 for the training of four pilots.
The business case said that the Air Corps had been hit by a wave of “premature voluntary retirements”, including the short-notice departure of one senior pilot. It said that there was a global shortage of pilots, and that these were being felt particularly “acutely” in military air forces. “The consequence of this is that there is very limited, if any, military pilot training capacity in external air terms,” it said.
It added that the Air Corps had looked at alternative training options in UK joint military and civilian flight schools, but that there was no availability due to “national shortages” there. The business case said that training for specific military skills such as formation flying, low-level flight operations, tactical flying, and air firing, meant that market options were limited.
The Air Corps had engaged with the military in the UK and the US “at a very senior level” to discuss training options. “Only the US has indicated that they have the capacity to deal with a military pilot training request,” the document read.
The business case provided further background on just how short-handed the Air Corps had become, with retirements leaving them at a “culmination point”. Staffing levels of experienced pilots, especially helicopter commanders, were below critical mass, which had a knock-on effect on training.
It added: “Following a research visit to the US Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama to assess the viability of helicopter training, the US have offered military pilot training capacity. The training aircraft being offered are similar to [our] aircraft in terms of size, performance, and training output; necessitating minimal ‘differences’ on return … while maintaining training standards and timelines.”
The defence forces also prepared a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis on the move. It said that it would alleviate pressures on the Air Corps, and increase available resources. However, it added that the Air Corps would no longer have “direct and exclusive supervision” of trainees and that the costs involved were “unavoidable”.
Separately, Department of Defence records also warned of “organisational risk” if steps were not taken to manage the loss of experienced pilots.
A strategic review marked “confidential” stated: “Such a training surge, which is envisaged will last four years, would reduce the overall training pressures on the flying training school; shorten Air Corps cadetships to two years, qualify more pilot officers sooner, and mitigate training pressures risk.”
Asked for comment on the records, the defence forces said that they had nothing to add.
‘Not enough military pilots’ to maintain airborne security
The Department of Defence has been told that the number of pilots available in the Air Corps is below the “critical mass” needed for airborne security, new records show.
Eight Irish pilots are being trained with the US military in Alabama, as the Defence Forces warned that premature retirements from the Air Corps had reached a “critical level”.
A record released under a freedom of information request revealed that a business case prepared for the Department of Defence said the number of pilots available in the Air Corps had fallen below “the critical mass required to sustain the provision of airborne defence and security operations”.
The record — which was released with redactions for security reasons — warns that “immediate remedial action” was required to rebuild available manpower. It said that outsourced training would be crucial “to restore the provision of adequate airborne defence and security services”.
The defence forces and the Department of Defence declined to confirm how much the training was going to cost the taxpayer. However, internal records from the department give an estimate of €650,000 to €850,000 for the training of four pilots.
The business case said that the Air Corps had been hit by a wave of “premature voluntary retirements”, including the short-notice departure of one senior pilot. It said that there was a global shortage of pilots, and that these were being felt particularly “acutely” in military air forces. “The consequence of this is that there is very limited, if any, military pilot training capacity in external air terms,” it said.
It added that the Air Corps had looked at alternative training options in UK joint military and civilian flight schools, but that there was no availability due to “national shortages” there. The business case said that training for specific military skills such as formation flying, low-level flight operations, tactical flying, and air firing, meant that market options were limited.
The Air Corps had engaged with the military in the UK and the US “at a very senior level” to discuss training options. “Only the US has indicated that they have the capacity to deal with a military pilot training request,” the document read.
The business case provided further background on just how short-handed the Air Corps had become, with retirements leaving them at a “culmination point”. Staffing levels of experienced pilots, especially helicopter commanders, were below critical mass, which had a knock-on effect on training.
It added: “Following a research visit to the US Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama to assess the viability of helicopter training, the US have offered military pilot training capacity. The training aircraft being offered are similar to [our] aircraft in terms of size, performance, and training output; necessitating minimal ‘differences’ on return … while maintaining training standards and timelines.”
The defence forces also prepared a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis on the move. It said that it would alleviate pressures on the Air Corps, and increase available resources. However, it added that the Air Corps would no longer have “direct and exclusive supervision” of trainees and that the costs involved were “unavoidable”.
Separately, Department of Defence records also warned of “organisational risk” if steps were not taken to manage the loss of experienced pilots.
A strategic review marked “confidential” stated: “Such a training surge, which is envisaged will last four years, would reduce the overall training pressures on the flying training school; shorten Air Corps cadetships to two years, qualify more pilot officers sooner, and mitigate training pressures risk.”
Asked for comment on the records, the defence forces said that they had nothing to add.
"The business case said that the Air Corps had been hit by a wave of “premature voluntary retirements”, including the short-notice departure of one senior pilot. It said that there was a global shortage of pilots, and that these were being felt particularly “acutely” in military air forces. "
That sounds like an appreciation done about a year ago = there is now no shortage of pilots anywhere.......................... except in the air
That sounds like an appreciation done about a year ago = there is now no shortage of pilots anywhere.......................... except in the air
According to the IAA, they do have Primary Radar https://www.iaa.ie/air-traffic-manag...eillance-radar which, presumably, also feeds into Defence somehow - even just by phone from the IAA would count. Of course, what they don't say is the range of Primary cover but, by implication, it provides good cover out to "x" km. The UK suffers the same lack of Primary reach, hence Saxa Vord being reopened as a RRH in 2018 to provide additional cover up North.
There was also a report back in 2015 (OK, a newspaper article behind a paywall and I've not seen the actual white paper) which talks about the procurement of new Radars for Irish AD specifically. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e...st-xfbvzt7bv0b which notes they will be used "to keep track of covert aircraft such as the two Russian TU-95s which flew across Irish-controlled international airspace in January [2015]"
Not sure if the radars mentioned by the IAA are the same as these or if, indeed, the white paper ever gained traction. Maybe it refers to additional cover over and above that mentioned in the IAA link ....... maybe even an OTHR to cover out to 30W?
Some NATS trials were conducted years ago from Blakehill Farm in the UK looking at the potential for OTHR coverage out over Ireland into the deep Atlantic so the concept's not new.Anyway, just from my understanding - so I may need to be corrected!!!
H 'n' H
Green Flash,
Baltic/Iceland all happen because they are full members of NATO. Ireland is not.
tucumseh,
You cannot spend the tax payers money anywhere in Government without an outline Business case (OBC) followed up by a fully specced business case (FBC) that has been peer reviewed, examined for justification and value for money, confirmed as in budget, and in full accordance with fiscal approach and policy as your justification to spend money. And quite rightly so.
Baltic/Iceland all happen because they are full members of NATO. Ireland is not.
tucumseh,
You cannot spend the tax payers money anywhere in Government without an outline Business case (OBC) followed up by a fully specced business case (FBC) that has been peer reviewed, examined for justification and value for money, confirmed as in budget, and in full accordance with fiscal approach and policy as your justification to spend money. And quite rightly so.
You cannot spend the tax payers money anywhere in Government without an outline Business case (OBC) followed up by a fully specced business case (FBC) that has been peer reviewed, examined for justification and value for money, confirmed as in budget, and in full accordance with fiscal approach and policy as your justification to spend money. And quite rightly so.
I do recall one Project I was managing (I was working remotely with my own little Team based on the other side of the country from HQ) and, each month, I'd submit a fairly detailed picture of actual spend vs planned spend and an updated FOO. Eventually, the phone rang and the PA to the Finance bod wanted to speak to me.
"H 'n' H, we are all just wondering but why do you keep on sending in these Financial Progress Reports?". "Coz Finance bod told me to!". "Ahhhhhhh, OK. We just thought it a bit odd .... as you are the only one who seems to have even the vaguest clue as to how much they are spending! No-one else from here even sends them in any more!".
MoD finance at it's best!!!!
Last edited by Hot 'n' High; 4th Jan 2021 at 12:07. Reason: To apologise for continued Thread drift! :-)
Hello all,
Unfortunately the White Paper mentioned is notorious in Irish military circles. Less than half the projects have been started, let alone finished. I’ll say that the military side of the house have been keen to drive these things along and leave it at that.
Primary radar exists in terms of civilian airports, but it lacks the long range coverage to look right out there. Connaught and Kerry airports both take feeds from the primary radar in Shannon for example.
Biden as POTUS or not, I’m not sure how the wider public would take to a permanent US deployment or indeed any other under a NATO guise. Even PFP is a stretch for some. Some sort of EUFOR mission, maybe ( even if it was the same people, and still a big maybe!), but proving the need politically would still be the first requirement.
There’s a bit of a conversation going on Twitter at the moment if you look for @IDFOC
Otherwise, the whole underlying, bottom layer of the pyramid is still personnel retention. Post Covid, the recent re-entry stream will likely dry up and the need to look at Ts and Cs for all ranks will determine whether or not any capability can be developed.
Dec
Unfortunately the White Paper mentioned is notorious in Irish military circles. Less than half the projects have been started, let alone finished. I’ll say that the military side of the house have been keen to drive these things along and leave it at that.
Primary radar exists in terms of civilian airports, but it lacks the long range coverage to look right out there. Connaught and Kerry airports both take feeds from the primary radar in Shannon for example.
Biden as POTUS or not, I’m not sure how the wider public would take to a permanent US deployment or indeed any other under a NATO guise. Even PFP is a stretch for some. Some sort of EUFOR mission, maybe ( even if it was the same people, and still a big maybe!), but proving the need politically would still be the first requirement.
There’s a bit of a conversation going on Twitter at the moment if you look for @IDFOC
Otherwise, the whole underlying, bottom layer of the pyramid is still personnel retention. Post Covid, the recent re-entry stream will likely dry up and the need to look at Ts and Cs for all ranks will determine whether or not any capability can be developed.
Dec
